Grover Cleveland was single went he enetered the White House and married there. A First Lady is just an adjunct. And we may have a first "First Man" or First Laddy, if Mrs. Clinton is elected. The U.S. is a Republic. We have a representative govenment, which doesn't always represent all peoples agendas. As far as this "communist nosense talk", I believe it is just that. The big bugaaboo, when you don't understand a point say it is "communist".

Of course I'm not proposing slavery. Who said I wanted to keep them working for free? Good heavens no, what I'm proposing is that they either stay in Britain and get real jobs, live as real people and recieve the same rights as all other citizens would or they go abroad and live out their fantasys of still being in the Palace. As to who do I think I am - I think I'm a British citizen who has the freedom of speech and expression. I have the freedom and the right to outline the Britain I want to see and I have the right to colloborate with others who feel the same way in order to bring about change. It isn't importance, it's a human right and something which I'm entitled to under the UN Charter of 1947 and the Treaty of Rome.

Wonderfully stated. On point to all the acrimonious accusations. No where in Beatrix Fan's writings on this particular subject, should have lead anyone to believe they wanted communism or slavery. It is a discussion about working for your worth. It is also an opinion of a British Citizen about the feeling they have for their government's machinations. It is a definition of democracy. It, again, is right on point. Thank you Beatrix Fan for you sensible post.

I've moved this general discussion about the monarchy from the "The Marriage" thread in the Charles and Camilla subforum.

Please stay away from political posts about countries other than the United Kingdom. Detailed posts about the US political system, the way Communism has fared in Russia and China, and other off-topic material along those lines will be deleted.

As someone born, raised and continues to live in the US, I can not truly comment on a monarchy, anywhere. Meaning no disrespect to the British, the RF or anyone in particular, I have to agree w Countess' comments about the RF being "window dressing." At least that's pretty much how they are looked at over here in The States. They are a form of entertainment for us, like high-end celebrities. We marvel at their antics and their lifestyle just as we do w Brad & Angie, Marc and J-Lo and the rest of "high society". And when I use the term "we" I'm referring to the General Public. Not everyone views monarchy this way. But most citizens in the US do. It's fine to gawk at them and follow their trials and tribulations, but if anyone were to even dare suggest starting a monarchy here (I'm being hypothetical), you would see people turn fast. I think what rubs ppl the wrong way in the US is the class distinctions that go on over in Britain. Yes, there are rich and poor in every country and there's a wide gap between. But it's not so evident in the US in terms of titles and peerage and 'ancestrial seats.' People everywhere feel some form of resentment (whether they admit it or not) towards someone who has pretty much been handed everything in Life. And have a damn good life at that. And that's how alot of folks see royalty, at least in the US - at least in serious terms. Yes, I know the royals do their charity work and open wings of hospitals and all that, but to alot of ppl, that's not really work. In the end, however, it will be the British people who decide about the RF. It's their history, culture and country. I've spoken with British citizens who adore the RF (despite that they themselves are struggling to make ends meet in a little flat somewhere) while I've talked to others who spit at the name of any royal and consider them worthless leeches. So who knows. As an American who's not paying British taxes or not having to deal with the class issues I can sit back and enjoy the show.

Every tax payer pays 61/62p to support the monarchy. Therefore, every tax payer has the right to criticise as any employer has the right to criticise hired help. And if younger members of the Royal Family are going to tell us to kiss off, we'll happily pack their bags.

There is a possible benefit (for me) of a hypothetical British republic. Since that wouldn't affect the other realms (at least not Canada, since it requires a very hard to enact constitutional amendment), the royal family could move to Ottawa.

Let's just get right down to it, shall we? Without the Royal Family, precisely what position do you think the United Kingdom would play not only in the European theater, but on the globe?

Within the EU, the UK is most certainly NOT a major player, Germany controls the EU currency, the UK does not dominate EU politics by any stretch of the imagination.

On the world stage, you don't really fancy the UK as a world power any more, do you? There is no "Empire" and the few nuclear weapons you do have are easily offset by the massive arsenals of the real world powers. The fact is it would take VERY FEW WMD to completely and totally annihilate the UK and the UK is NOT in a position to respond in kind. The UK does NOT have the economic clot to handout economic "punishment" to anyone, anywhere, quite the contrary, that is why the UK agreed to join the EU in the first place, to align itself with a confederation of states to match the US and other world powers.

The Monarchy and the influence that comes with it is one of the UKs few really powerful tools, you would be beyond foolish to rid yourselves of that tool, most in the UK already know that and that is why it remains today.

So you think the RF stands between nuclear annihilation or not? What a silly thought. Britain lost its world power status after WWI, but managed to survive, RF or not. All countries have allies. It seems to be the lay of the land. These treaties allow the smaller nation the knowledge that her "friends" will help defend her when she is attacked. NATO is one of those treaties. If Britain has a problem, the U.S. has pledged to help, not because of the RF, but because Britain represents a democratic nation of sorts and in this instance is held in great respect, because many of our forebears come from there. We share a common language and many similar laws. Some which we purloined when starting our nation. We sent tons of material through Lend Lease before we entered WWII, because Britain was an ally, not because of some king or RF. Most of Europe at one time had a RF, most don't now. They still have allies. Germany can no more defend itself from a nuclear attack, than can Britain. It, too, has allies. The EU was put together to form alliances for many purposes. Nobody involved in those alliances cares much one way or the other. These are political alliances, some monarchies, some republics. They still plan to defend each other.

So you think the RF stands between nuclear annihilation or not? What a silly thought. Britain lost its world power status after WWI, but managed to survive, RF or not. All countries have allies. It seems to be the lay of the land. These treaties allow the smaller nation the knowledge that her "friends" will help defend her when she is attacked. NATO is one of those treaties. If Britain has a problem, the U.S. has pledged to help, not because of the RF, but because Britain represents a democratic nation of sorts and in this instance is held in great respect, because many of our forebears come from there. We share a common language and many similar laws. Some which we purloined when starting our nation. We sent tons of material through Lend Lease before we entered WWII, because Britain was an ally, not because of some king or RF. Most of Europe at one time had a RF, most don't now. They still have allies. Germany can no more defend itself from a nuclear attack, than can Britain. It, too, has allies. The EU was put together to form alliances for many purposes. Nobody involved in those alliances cares much one way or the other. These are political alliances, some monarchies, some republics. They still plan to defend each other.

{personal comment deleted - Elspeth} I never said or implied any such thing and you know it.

What I said quite clearly was that the UK and it's position in global affairs is most certainly and beyond question significantly enhanced through the Monarchy and the prestige and influence said Monarchy exercise throughout the world. Such influence has greatly benefited the UK for several past decades, even in modern history. Being above politics allows the Monarchy to access and advocate without regard to political initiatives and goals, for the benefit of the British people. Precisely because of the awe that the Monarchy inspires, it has exercised such positive influence globally.

When you think of the monarchy continuing he in the 21st century there are some very valid issues raised. The most interesting one works on a very basic level where an individual wants to be known as a subject or a citizen.

Another one has to do with "popularity" and in a way it is very sad....I don't see the support among the "common people" for someone like Prince Charles when compared to his mother or his son, but like any established institution, despite perceived the shortcomings of the future King, nothing could topple the Monarchy except a referendum and Prince Charles has incredible support from the most powerful of his subjects.

A Royal Family is a good thing, imo. It is a true living link to the mists of ancient times. A living symbol of strength and power in this day of age is a great concept. Let's just hope they can adapt to the evolution of society with a little more humanity and finesse..

Let's just get right down to it, shall we? Without the Royal Family, precisely what position do you think the United Kingdom would play not only in the European theater, but on the globe?

Within the EU, the UK is most certainly NOT a major player, Germany controls the EU currency, the UK does not dominate EU politics by any stretch of the imagination.

On the world stage, you don't really fancy the UK as a world power any more, do you? There is no "Empire" and the few nuclear weapons you do have are easily offset by the massive arsenals of the real world powers. The fact is it would take VERY FEW WMD to completely and totally annihilate the UK and the UK is NOT in a position to respond in kind. The UK does NOT have the economic clot to handout economic "punishment" to anyone, anywhere, quite the contrary, that is why the UK agreed to join the EU in the first place, to align itself with a confederation of states to match the US and other world powers.

The Monarchy and the influence that comes with it is one of the UKs few really powerful tools, you would be beyond foolish to rid yourselves of that tool, most in the UK already know that and that is why it remains today.

Here is your post that decries without the monarchy Britain is nothing. You can't have it both ways. Britain is a solid country with good values, it is of little import that they have a queen, king or a court jester. They will politically be able to survive with or without. It is up to the British as to what they want. The monarachy will only survive if the citizens of Britain wish it to continue. To those who see it through nostalgic glasses, remember there are many nations who suffered under British Imperialism, which set up their feelings today. As the empire folded it was imperative for Britain to try and put together a Commonwealth, which would bring them the prestige and trading partners they needed. This queen has done a marvelous job maintaining that commonwealth. No one knows after her death what will transpire. I, certainly, don't. I also feel it is not my place, but those who it affect to really say what they want. There are educated opinions that say several nations will leave. But until that happens no one will know.

{personal comment deleted - Elspeth} I never said or implied any such thing and you know it.

What I said quite clearly was that the UK and it's position in global affairs is most certainly and beyond question significantly enhanced through the Monarchy and the prestige and influence said Monarchy exercise throughout the world. Such influence has greatly benefited the UK for several past decades, even in modern history. Being above politics allows the Monarchy to access and advocate without regard to political initiatives and goals, for the benefit of the British people. Precisely because of the awe that the Monarchy inspires, it has exercised such positive influence globally.

Sorry Diamond but I don't agree with this. As stated earlier, the US (and most other countries) could care less if a country has a monarchy or not. Most kings/queens are viewed as figure-heads and that is all. Most European monarchies lost their real power centuries ago. Though I'm aware HM meets w the PM and discusses events, I hardly believe the fact that she does influences political decisons by other countries. As BF stated, if the monarchy were to be abolished tomorrow it would not change the way the US and Britain deal w each other politically. The RF is more a cultural entity than a political one. At least today. And as for being in awe, I'd like to believe that as well but most ppl, at least in the US, are far from being in awe of monarchies. They are viewed by many as outdated and elitist.

Here is your post that decries without the monarchy Britain is nothing. You can't have it both ways. Britain is a solid country with good values, it is of little import that they have a queen, king or a court jester. They will politically be able to survive with or without. It is up to the British as to what they want. The monarachy will only survive if the citizens of Britain wish it to continue. To those who see it through nostalgic glasses, remember there are many nations who suffered under British Imperialism, which set up their feelings today. As the empire folded it was imperative for Britain to try and put together a Commonwealth, which would bring them the prestige and trading partners they needed. This queen has done a marvelous job maintaining that commonwealth. No one knows after her death what will transpire. I, certainly, don't. I also feel it is not my place, but those who it affect to really say what they want. There are educated opinions that say several nations will leave. But until that happens no one will know.

Yes, the UK is a solid country with good values, so are any number of other small and inconsequential nations on the world stage and your point it? At this point in time the ONLY thing that really separates it from several other small solid countries with good values is the Monarchy and the respect that it has garnered around the world. Your assertion that the UK would retain that status without a Monarchy is unsupported with any factual evidence whatsoever.

Let's just get right down to it, shall we? Without the Royal Family, precisely what position do you think the United Kingdom would play not only in the European theater, but on the globe?

The Royal Family do not handle diplomacy, the Government do. Margaret Beckett did more for British foreign policy in her short reign as Foreign Secretary than the Queen has ever done. It isn't the Queen's job to formulate or exercise foreign policy and her role in diplomacy is limited to hosting dinners for foreign leaders which could easily be done by a President. The Royal Family neither represent us within the European Union or the United Nations and so I think your claim that without the Royal Family Britain ceases to be a world power is a gross exaggeration that can't be substantiated.

Quote:

Within the EU, the UK is most certainly NOT a major player, Germany controls the EU currency, the UK does not dominate EU politics by any stretch of the imagination.

The UK isn't a major player in the European Union because we have a Euro-sceptic press that controls the Government. However, that's beside the point - I'd suggest to you that it isn't the role of any nation to dominate EU politics, the whole idea of the organisation is that we all work together for the good of the continent and her people. As to Germany controlling the EU currency, I'd suggest to you that again, that's quite an exaggeration that has very little factual evidence to support it though I'll happily view what you can show me.

Quote:

On the world stage, you don't really fancy the UK as a world power any more, do you? There is no "Empire" and the few nuclear weapons you do have are easily offset by the massive arsenals of the real world powers. The fact is it would take VERY FEW WMD to completely and totally annihilate the UK and the UK is NOT in a position to respond in kind. The UK does NOT have the economic clot to handout economic "punishment" to anyone, anywhere, quite the contrary, that is why the UK agreed to join the EU in the first place, to align itself with a confederation of states to match the US and other world powers.

What you're suggesting here is that the UK should dominate the world. Well, you're about 100 years too late but it's a sentiment that is common and one that seems to shape most ideas about the monarchy. This idea that Britain had an Empire therefore we should have the best of everything and spend nothing in the way of finances or labour is quite archaic and it's what actually holds us back in the internation arena. One of the most common arguments I hear for keeping the monarchy is that it somehow puts us above other nations - well, that's actually quite a ridiculous goal. Britain isn't any more special than France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Latvia or Poland. British people are right to be patriotic and I'm glad that they're proud to be British but making the Queen a symbol of some left-over mis-guided jingoism that justifies pig headed isolationism is really quite detrimental to Britain's future. Where nuclear arms come into it I just don't know. Are you suggesting that the Queen controls the button and will press it the moment her position is threatened? You seem to be suggesting that the British are a master race who should own the universe and that the Royal Family somehow should hold the whip over the EU. With respect, that's quite absurd.

Quote:

The Monarchy and the influence that comes with it is one of the UKs few really powerful tools, you would be beyond foolish to rid yourselves of that tool, most in the UK already know that and that is why it remains today.

What influence does it have? Who really cares about it? The man in the street cares more about paying his debts and feeding his kids, not about whether Princess Anne has two tiaras or three. In my opinion, the monarchy isn't a tool at all, however, the monarch we have at the moment certainly is. Thats because of her age and dedication but take those away which you'll have to when William takes over, and you've got a very bland young bloke trying to play at being a leader. The Queen is Head of State but what does she do state-wise? She signs legislation that is prepared for her and that in reality, she can't reject. She meets with the Privy Council who'd do what they wanted whether she liked it or not. She greets foreign dignitaries, she awards honours, she sits in a carriage twice a year and waves at us like a Blackpool landlady. All of those things can be done by a President. God, they were all done by Thora Hird and she wasn't Queen!